Star Trek and Homosexuality

this topic always puzzled me in star trek,there were no gay characters at all in the TREK universe,seems weird since it is a very advance stage of society were everyone is beyond insignificant hate/discrimination.
in addition i read many interviews with Gene and some other writters,all of them were really interested in making a gay couple as part of a trek series.

In an interview with gene,he said he was thinking about inserting a gay couple in season 5 and later,1 of the character would be close to Diana...he died before he could do that.

i also read about DS9 wanting to create a gay secondary character on the station,but was refused by the network and the idea was not supported by Berman.

as for VOY,the concept of seven of nine was first written as Female who later discovers her homosexuality,and that she would be the first in the trek franchise that also was removed by the network.

on ENT it was stated very publicly the first season that Malcom reed is gonna play the first homosexual male,also edited later on...

most of the explanations are that the homosexual concept would be too new for the franchise etc...

Kate Mulgrew when asked about the subject said that she has no problem would have been an acting challenge to play or cope with a homosexual role in Scifi (she seems very gay friendly). she also said that she even suggested it to berman after many requests but berman responded '' in due time''.

With all the fanfic about Janeway/Seven as a Lesbian couple i don't find Homosexuality weird in trek .

Captain Ikaru Sulu played by George Tekei was the only out in public homosexual actor he was publicly seen in a gay pride with he's Boyfriend.

And now the newest spock played by Zachary Quinto is the second gay man to step in trek.

So why wont they make a dam cute gay couple? its the 24 century we are all open minded there it is a very educated world,based on peace prosperity liberty between different cultures etc.....

so what do you guys think? would it be cool to have a gay couple?character?at least a gay episode?

as for VOY,the concept of seven of nine was first written as Female who later discovers her homosexuality,and that she would be the first in the trek franchise that also was removed by the network.

Click to expand...

What what what, I don't believe this. If this was the plan, the network would have cashed in on it. Moral outrage from radical news outlets be damned, they'd had the teenage male demographic eating out of their hands. The second I read this, I saw dollar signs. Don't tell me a suit didn't. I'm not even a suit, and I'm drooling at the thought of the swimming pool full of money that could have been.

This is a topic that I think should be addressed in future Trek--either the next series (if there ever is one) or maybe the Nu-Trek movies (Chekov has a boyfriend maybe? ).

Considering that Trek is supposed to be about equality for all, the fact that a discriminated demographic has been ignored is (as a gay man) infuriating. In all the fanfic that I write, I always include at least one gay character in the main cast (in one guest ship, the Border Cutter Kukui, I actually have three: the Captain is a Bajoran man, married to another Bajoran man, with an adopted Cardassian daughter; the First Officer is a human male currently in a physical relationship with the male CO of a station; and lastly the Second/Tactical Officer is a Trill woman who is having a long-distance relationship with an Orion woman on another ship). Having a homosexual character doesn't mean that Trek has to become X-Rated, but a little recognition would be nice!

as for VOY,the concept of seven of nine was first written as Female who later discovers her homosexuality,and that she would be the first in the trek franchise that also was removed by the network.

Click to expand...

What what what, I don't believe this. If this was the plan, the network would have cashed in on it. Moral outrage from radical news outlets be damned, they'd had the teenage male demographic eating out of their hands. The second I read this, I saw dollar signs. Don't tell me a suit didn't. I'm not even a suit, and I'm drooling at the thought of the swimming pool full of money that could have been.

Click to expand...

That's funny, I would have thought 7 being gay would cause you to drool over swimming pool scenes that were filled with something prettier than money.

The TV shows really dropped the ball. TPTB were far more interested in "playing it safe" and making as much money as possible than to"risk" adding a gay character that might upset some backward hicks and bible thumpers.

To be fair, portraying a gay person on screen, and doing them justice, is rather difficult. Being gay isn't something you can see, which makes it a bit harder to telegraph one's orientation in a visual medium without screwing it up.

That said, if it were up to me, I would have done this: Riker, Troi, and Guinan are discussing something in Ten Forward. In the background, almost at the focus range of the camera, you see a male civilian stand up and greet another male walking up to his table, smiling, kissing him on the lips and then offering him a chair. All the while, Riker, Troi, and Guinan are still focused on the main plot or discussion, and no one comments on anything.

It would be subtle enough, without seeming overt, and would get the point across fairly simply. In that simple 10 second scene, it would be established that homosexuality is present in the Star Trek universe, that it's openly accepted, and that it's a normal type of social acceptance.

They managed to that when it wasn't humans. The male Bolian who was murdered was mentioned as having a co-husband in DS9. But they couldn't just have a human male mentioned to have a husband.

Click to expand...

Really? I must have missed that reference. Still, I'll give them points for trying. I think, though, that the social perception has adjusted enough so that if there is a new Trek series, someone will play a gay character.

The TV shows really dropped the ball. TPTB were far more interested in "playing it safe" and making as much money as possible than to"risk" adding a gay character that might upset some backward hicks and bible thumpers.

Click to expand...

The shows are part of a business, and making money is the first (and, often, second and third) priority of any business, dude.

I would applaud any effort to cut the so-called "backward hicks and bible-thumpers" down to size but, from a corporate standpoint, they include scary people with heavy-duty influence and connections. Confrontation with such would probably cause lots of problems (and losses) with little or no real benefit to be had for the business.

Also noting, should characters have been brought into the shows just because they were specifically gay? Think on that for a bit. And how could this be done without pushing the dreaded STEREOTYPE button?

Understand, I am most definitely not anti-gay, and have always seen acceptance of other people's differances as a core value of Trek. But, simply asserting that "Come what may, Star Trek should have ...." is (IMO) oversimplifying the entire issue.

I like J. Allen's approach, in crowd scenes then have same sex couples holding hands or embracing, just to show that it is as much a part of 'normal' life as a Ferengi trying to earn profit.

Portraying a gay character would be no different from a straight one in the Trek-verse (IMHO), all that would change would be on their obligatory 'relationship episode' the gender of the person who they fall for would be the same as themselves. Their sexuality doesn't need to have stories written especially for it.

In the Dax/Kahn episode (I think its called "Rejoined"), the focus of the episode was on the fact that they couldn't be together because they were both Joined, not because they were women.

There's a difference between 'camp' and gay. There could have been any number of crew seen in the shows that were gay - it's just that we didn't see their personal lives. If they weren't visibly camp, how would you know ? I've known several people who I wouldn't have known were gay until they told me.

I do think it was a lost opportunity over TNG, DS9, Voyager and ENT not to have explicitly made at least one character gay though - after all, it's not the dark ages !

... and lastly the Second/Tactical Officer is a Trill woman who is having a long-distance relationship with an Orion woman on another ship).

Click to expand...

I have wondered if two isolated ships could through subspace communications tie in together, and allow two people to have a "rendez-vous" on the holodeck. Not a holo fantasy character, but a interactive encounter in real time with their actual lover.

Being gay isn't something you can see, which makes it a bit harder to telegraph one's orientation in a visual medium without screwing it up.

Click to expand...

I disagree, Riker's heterosexuality was easy to pick-up on, he was overtly interested in females. He was constantly checking out females in general, and female crewmembers too, little sideways glances. He flirted, smiled, body language'd toward women in a way he never would towards a man.

Now just take that and have the exact some behavior between a male main character and other males on the show.

There could have been any number of crew seen in the shows that were gay - it's just that we didn't see their personal lives.

Click to expand...

That doesn't really work. Star Trek is a show, if gays were referred to, but just not seen, you could then make the statement you just did. The fact of the matter is there are simply no gays on Star Trek, in any form.

Take the last movie as a micro-example, there were five relationships shown. Nero-wife, George-Winona, Sarek-Amanda, Spock-Uhura, and Kirk-Green Girl. All were heterosexual, while some were cross-species, none were gay.

There could have been any number of crew seen in the shows that were gay - it's just that we didn't see their personal lives.

Click to expand...

That doesn't really work. Star Trek is a show, if gays were referred to, but just not seen, you could then make the statement you just did. The fact of the matter is there are simply no gays on Star Trek, in any form.
")

Click to expand...

'Camp' ? You could be right, but it seemed preferable to some of the alternatives - what would you suggest ?

I am still not convinced that failing to address alternative sexualities means that they do not exist or worse still, that they no longer exist.

... and lastly the Second/Tactical Officer is a Trill woman who is having a long-distance relationship with an Orion woman on another ship).

Click to expand...

I have wondered if two isolated ships could through subspace communications tie in together, and allow two people to have a "rendez-vous" on the holodeck. Not a holo fantasy character, but a interactive encounter in real time with their actual lover.

Click to expand...

I would think that by 2378 (when my Border Service fanfic is set) that that could be a very real possibility. What someone does on the holodecks in their own personal time is their business, and (thanks to "Up The Long Ladder") we know the ship cleans itself so the next user would be none the wiser.

I mean if holodecks were around now, they would predominantly be used for porn/sex wouldn't they?

... and lastly the Second/Tactical Officer is a Trill woman who is having a long-distance relationship with an Orion woman on another ship).

Click to expand...

I have wondered if two isolated ships could through subspace communications tie in together, and allow two people to have a "rendez-vous" on the holodeck. Not a holo fantasy character, but a interactive encounter in real time with their actual lover.

Click to expand...

I would think that by 2378 (when my Border Service fanfic is set) that that could be a very real possibility. What someone does on the holodecks in their own personal time is their business, and (thanks to "Up The Long Ladder") we know the ship cleans itself so the next user would be none the wiser.

I mean if holodecks were around now, they would predominantly be used for porn/sex wouldn't they?

Trek really, really dropped the ball on this one- obviously a gay character should be in any future series, but when they had a chance to really make a difference and be progressive and forward-thinking (when DS9 and VOY were airing, basically), they decided to sidestep the issue (with the exception of Rejoined and The Outcast, of course, which were both excellent). Even if they do have gay characters in future episodes of some hypothetical future series, they will be so far behind the curve it will be laughable.

That said, it is an extremely tricky issue to tackle and I can see why the predominantly white male writing team behind all of the shows were wary of introducing it, since it would be under immense scrutiny and any misstep could be horribly misconstrued.

A big part of Riker's character IS his heterosexuality. I think that is fine and we know people like that in reality. Most of my gay friends do seem gay. Some (a minority, certainly) of them are outrageously camp in a way that would seem totally OTT if you saw it on a TV show (as the Jack character was on Will & Grace), particularly a show like Trek where most characters are understated or, god forbid, actually quite bland. Most of them are not camp but are quite straightforward about their sexuality- you'd know they were gay after talking to them for 5 mins. I'm assuming that we're talking about this sort of representation on Trek (since 'campness' is so era-specific, it wouldn't really wash in the future [not to say that you can't have camp characters, like Lwaxana, in Trek]), where a character doesn't seem that different to the other characters, they are just sexually interested in same-gender characters. How would this be teletyped, on the show? The best thing you could do is play it directly, as they did in Rejoined, not make a big deal of it. But it would still have been a big deal to the audience, since it was this new thing, and everything would have been a statement. I think they can and should have done this- but it is somewhat understandable why they did not.